Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Discovered New Source For Brain’s Development

0
0

A team of biologists has found an unexpected source for the brain’s development, a finding that offers new insights into the building of the nervous system.

The research, which appears in the journal Science, discovered that glia, a collection of non-neuronal cells that had long been regarded as passive support cells, in fact are vital to nerve-cell development in the brain.

“The results lead us to revise the often neuro-centric view of brain development to now appreciate the contributions for non-neuronal cells such as glia,” said Vilaiwan Fernandes, a postdoctoral fellow in New York University’s Department of Biology and the study’s lead author. “Indeed, our study found that fundamental questions in brain development with regard to the timing, identity, and coordination of nerve cell birth can only be understood when the glial contribution is accounted for.”

The brain is made up of two broad cell types, nerve cells or neurons and glia, which are non-nerve cells that make up more than half the volume of the brain. Neurobiologists have tended to focus on the former because these are the cells that form networks that process information.

However, given the preponderance of glia in the brain’s cellular make-up, the NYU researchers hypothesized that they could play a fundamental part in brain development.

To explore this, they examined the visual system of the fruit fly. The species serves as a powerful model organism for this line of study because its visual system, like the one in humans, holds repeated mini-circuits that detect and process light over the entire visual field.

This dynamic is of particular interest to scientists because, as the brain develops, it must coordinate the increase of neurons in the retina with other neurons in distant regions of the brain.

In their study, the NYU researchers found that the coordination of nerve-cell development is achieved through a population of glia, which relay cues from the retina to the brain to make cells in the brain become nerve cells.

“By acting as a signaling intermediary, glia exert precise control over not only when and where a neuron is born, but also the type of neuron it will develop into,” said NYU Biology Professor Claude Desplan, the paper’s senior author.


Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty: Addressing Normative Concerns – Analysis

0
0

By Shivani Singh*

Norms are considered a product of behaviour and expectations, thereby playing a vital role in international law and foreign policy. An example of such norm setting was witnessed in the recently adopted Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 2017, seeking to reflect normative changes that have happened since the NPT was enacted in 1970. The intent of this new treaty is to set the ball rolling for future disarmament negotiations and suggest measures that can be undertaken to envisage a nuclear weapons free world, and the process from a normative point of view was marked both by successes and failures.

The treaty codifies the norms of disarmament into a legally binding instrument, hence indicating a shift towards a ‘new’ normal and tightening the already existing norms based on past experience. An example of this progressive shift is the withdrawal clause in the treaty envisaged in Article 17 (3) which reads that any withdrawal from the treaty “shall only take effect twelve months after the date of the receipt of the notification of withdrawal by the Depositary,” as opposed to the NPT, under which the advance notice period for withdrawal is only 3 months.

This change is based on the experience with North Korea, whose unprecedented withdrawal from the NPT presented 3 problems. First, how can weaponisation be delayed if withdrawal eventuates? Second, how can more time be provided for diplomacy to prevent withdrawal or address underlying grievances? Third, how can it be ensured that technology acquired by the state during its membership of the NPT remains perpetually tied to safeguards, that were the precondition of their sale in the first place, in perpetuity? While the new treaty addressed the first two questions with the twelve month stipulation, it failed to address the third clear problem that the DPRK precedent threw up. This is surprising given that this last question is the crux of the problem at hand.

Another surprise is the inability of the negotiating parties to declare the use of nuclear weapons as a ‘crime against humanity’ which would have normatively overturned the 1996 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which held the use of nuclear weapons legal, subject to the principles of proportionality and the laws of war. The question arises again, why was this not done even though the nine nuclear weapon states did not take part in the negotiations and the remaining state parties have the most to gain?

Curiously, those often considered loudest voices of disarmament such as Austria and Japan only referred to the ‘’catastrophic humanitarian consequences’’ of nuclear weapons, carefully avoiding using or pushing for declaring the use of nuclear weapons illegal. The most curious of these was Japan, the only country to have suffered a nuclear strike. Austria, in the 2016 open-ended working group meeting in Geneva, clarified that in the spirit of the humanitarian initiative, a complete ban on nuclear weapons would take into consideration the most important notion of security, that is the security of the people, stating, ‘’The humanitarian initiative looks at the consequences of nuclear weapons on human populations and the risks that are borne by all humanity by the continued existence of these weapons. The consequences would be trans-boundary and potentially global and impact on the security, well-being and survival of humans in nuclear armed States and non-nuclear weapons States alike’’.

Similarly, Japan also stated that ‘’the awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons fundamentally underpins all nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation approaches and efforts’.’ Similar reports submitted by countries like Canada, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Spain take cognisance of the ‘humanitarian aspect’ of the problem but at the same time believe that it has to be balanced with strategic, tactical and security considerations.

This hesitation can be seen as emanating from the fact that most of these countries come under the US nuclear umbrella, giving them all the benefits of nuclear deterrence without the negatives associated with the possession of nuclear weapons. Cognisant of this, this powerful core of economically developed and normatively powerful states avoided what could have been the single biggest normative shift – prioritising realpolitik over altruism.

Therefore, looking at the progress so far, it is evident that the goal of universal nuclear disarmament envisaged in the original NPT is still a work in progress. That the new treaty despite bogged down by the security interests of some countries still managed to enact some normative changes is an achievement in itself. However, it does not go far enough. Possibly institutionalising the negotiation of a new NPT-style treaty every ten year, would accelerate the normative changes required and as such this new treaty must be seen as a baby step in the right direction.

* Shivani Singh
Research Intern, NSP, IPCS

The Gulf Crisis: Fighting It Out Down And Dirty – Analysis

0
0

In the three-month old Gulf crisis, nothing is too expensive or too down and dirty when it comes to buying influence, garnering soft power, and trying to win hearts and minds.

It is a battle fought primarily by the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, the Gulf’s two megalomaniac states, on European soccer pitches, in the board rooms of Western think tanks and universities, and in the media. Character assignation is fair game.

Qatar and the UAE stunned European soccer as the window closed this week for the buying and selling of players by driving prices through the roof and calling into question European soccer body UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules.

Qatar-owned French club Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) spent $476 million on two players: FC Barcelona’s Neymar and Monaco’s Kylian Sanmi Mbappé. No mean feat for a country of 300,000 citizens locked into an existential battle with a UAE-Saudi led alliance of African and Indian Ocean surrogates that seeks through a diplomatic and economic boycott to impose its will on Qatar. Expenditure of $203 million by Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City was similarly stratospheric, but paled in comparison.

The Qatari-UAE competition for jaw-dropping headlines is however about far more than trophy acquisitions and performance on the soccer pitch. By driving the price of soccer players into the stratosphere, Qatar was showing a finger to its Gulf detractors, saying it could shake off their boycott like it would swat a fly. That is priceless in an environment in which the UAE-Saudi-led alliance has failed to garner widespread support for its boycott in both the Muslim world and the broader international community.

It is also priceless in an environment in which Qatar and the UAE have been spending beyond sports humongous amounts on influencing research at influential think tanks and prestigious Western universities, some of whom have been lured to establish lucrative campuses in Doha and Abu Dhabi at the expense of compromising principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression.

It is also priceless as the two countries spend on hackers that in the case of the UAE created the pretext for the Gulf crisis and in the case of Qatar targeted the UAE with embarrassing disclosures.

That is no truer than by leaking not only emails from the account of Yousef al-Otaiba, the influential UAE ambassador to Washington, that are designed to chart the extent of his efforts to shape US policy and public perception, but also details of his private life that amount to an attempt at character assassination.

Although aware for months of the salacious emails distributed by a mysterious group that identifies itself as Global Leaks and uses a Russian-registered email address, this reporter has refrained from publishing materials that are not material to the power struggle between the Gulf states. The salacious mails were finally published this week by The Intercept. While there is no formal link between the leaks and Qatar, there is little doubt that they serve the Gulf state in its battle with the UAE.

Qatar has scored points with the leaks and the record-breaking soccer acquisitions. It has benefitted from the fact that while most Muslim and non-Muslim countries have shied away from taking sides in the Gulf crisis, their calls for a negotiated end to the solution in effect is more aligned with the Qatari position than that of the alliance that demands Qatar’s unconditional acceptance of its demands.

For Qatar, the soccer acquisitions are part of a far broader soft power strategy that in many ways might be the most strategic and thought through approach in the Gulf. It envisions sports as much as a pillar of national identity as it is a key leg of its effort to amass soft power. The 2022 World Cup the strategy’s crown jewel.

Yet, the strategy has produced only mixed results. Performance on the pitch has not offered the Qatari government the kind of success that various other Arab autocrats have been able to exploit in their bid to boost their image. Qatar is the first World Cup host in almost a century not to qualify for the World Cup on its own merit.

In the most recent example of political exploitation of the beautiful game, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salam this weekend sought to curry popular favour by declaring that attendance of this week’s World Cup qualifier against Japan would be free. The match will decide whether the kingdom qualifies for next year’s World Cup in Russia. Prince Mohammed’s gesture came days after the UAE defeated the Saudis in another World Cup qualifier that put Saudi participation in the World Cup at risk.

Prince Mohammed enjoys significant popularity in the expectation that his push for economic reform and a limited degree of greater social and cultural freedom will create jobs and cater to the aspiration of soccer-crazy Saudis, a majority of whom are under the age of 30. Gestures like free attendance of a match serve to manage expectations that have yet to be met.

Qatar, to its surprise, found that rather than being celebrated for its achievement as a small country in becoming the first Arab country ever to host a World Cup, it was mired in controversy over the integrity of its bid and pilloried for the living and working conditions of migrant workers, who constitute a majority of the Gulf state’s population. Instead of putting Qatar on a pedestal, winning the World Cup put it in the firing line with a wave of criticism of its kafala or labour sponsorship system labour regime that is not uniquely Qatari, but common to the Gulf.

To its credit, Qatar has responded positively to the criticism and in stark contrast to other Gulf states engaged with its critics. A series of legal reforms have sought to address criticism of the system by streamlining rather than abolishing a scheme that puts workers at the mercy of their employers.

The degree to which Qatar may have succeeded in responding to its critics will be put to the test in November when the International Labour Organization (ILO) reviews the Gulf state’s reforms. The ILO last year warned that it would establish a Commission of Inquiry if Qatar failed to bring its regime in line with international standards.

Such commissions are among the ILO’s most powerful tools to ensure compliance with international treaties. The UN body has only established 13 such commissions in its century-long history. The last such commission was created in 2010 to force Zimbabwe to live up to its obligations.

At the bottom line, the limited benefit both Qatar and the UAE have reaped from massive investment in soft power and public diplomacy suggests that money alone does not buy autocracies empathy or legitimacy. For that, the images they attempt to project need to be backed up by policies at home and abroad that are aligned and bear witness to claims cleverly crafted by politicians, lobbyists, and public relations experts. Both Qatar and the UAE find that requirement to meet.

Balochistan: Seven Decades Of Insurgency In Pakistan’s Restive South – Analysis

0
0

Next year will signal 70 years since the beginning of a fierce separatist insurgency fought in Pakistan’s troubled southern province of Balochistan. Over much of the last seven decades the conflict has rumbled on at a relatively low intensity, punctuated by five distinct periods of heightened violence. The current flare-up – which ignited in the mid-2000s – has proved by far the most enduring. And amid rising tensions in recent years, it appears there is no end in sight to Pakistan’s longest – yet most under-reported – war.

Location of Balochistan in Pakistan. Source: Wikipedia Commons.
Location of Balochistan in Pakistan. Source: Wikipedia Commons.

Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest province and stretches from the country’s interior to its remote southwestern region, where it borders neighbouring Afghanistan and Iran. The province is a vast territory rich in resources including gold, copper and natural gas, yet remains Pakistan’s most underdeveloped and impoverished province.

A sizeable proportion of its 12 million residents hold grievances regarding a perceived lack of political rights and accuse the central government of resource exploitation – concerns which underlie the seven-decade separatist movement and continue to drive the struggle for independence today.

The insurgency began less than a year after Pakistan’s independence from colonial rule in August 1947, when in March 1948 Pakistan dispatched troops to annex the southwestern area which was then known as Kalat. The territory’s ruler, Ahmed Yar Khan, later signed an accession treaty formalizing the incorporation of Kalat into the newly-founded nation-state of Pakistan. Yet many in the region strongly opposed the move, and the first of the Baloch nationalist rebellions was born.

The 1948 uprising was soon put down by security forces, but further armed campaigns erupted in 1958, 1962 and 1973, each lasting no-longer than four years before the army were able to regain a semblance of control. The fifth insurgency began in the mid-2000s and has been the most enduring. The violence was triggered as a consequence of several factors: as a result of opposition to the regime of General Pervez Musharraf; as a reaction to the 2006 killing of a key Baloch leader, Nawab Akbar Bugti, by the Pakistani army; and in response to a crackdown launched by security forces.

Ten years on, the fifth Baloch insurgency has still not abated as clashes continue between the military and an array of armed separatist groups, including the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), Balochistan Republican Army (BRA) and the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF).

In the last decade, the Pakistani authorities have been accused of committing widespread human rights violations, including presiding over unlawful detentions, extra-judicial killings, torture and disappearances. Criticism from international observers has been particularly fierce, with Human Rights Watch stating in a 2011 report that ‘‘the surge in unlawful killings of suspected militants and opposition figures in Balochistan has taken the brutality in the province to an unprecedented level.’’

The most controversial aspect of the war in Balochistan concerns the fate of the thousands of Baloch fighters and opposition activists who have disappeared in the last few decades. In December 2016, the BBC reported that almost 1,000 dead bodies of political activists and suspected separatists had been found dumped across the province since 2011. Human rights groups say the evidence points towards large-scale abductions and extra-judicial killings, citing relatives’ claims that many of the victims had previously been detained by Pakistan’s security forces before disappearing.

The government and military have repeatedly denied all accusations of complicity with regard to kidnappings and extra-judicial murder, instead blaming the deaths on organized crime and clashes between various militant groups active in the region. However, media silence on the issue within Pakistan, along with the high level of risk making the province a virtual no-go zone for journalists, has made substantive corroboration or verification of these claims almost impossible, further raising suspicions among many in the international community.

Amid the lack of coverage, the government is keen to put across its point of view, labelling most of the Baloch nationalist groups as ‘terrorist organizations’ and highlighting their continued attacks on not just security forces, but also against civilians. For example, in an April 2015 incident the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF) reportedly killed 20 labourers working on a road near the city of Turbat. The past few months have witnessed further attacks by Baloch nationalists against construction workers, who are often regarded as legitimate targets by the insurgents given local opposition to state-led development projects in the province.

Map of the China-Pakistan CPEC roadway network. Credit: Government of Pakistan, Wikipedia Commons.
Map of the China-Pakistan CPEC roadway network. Credit: Government of Pakistan, Wikipedia Commons.

Ongoing construction projects related to the proposed China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) have caused particular concern, further enflaming tensions over development in the region. China has invested $46m in the project, which aims to connect the western Chinese province of Xinjiang with the strategically-important deep-water port of Gwadar, located on southern Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coastline.

Pipeline projects routed through the province have also heightened tensions, with separatists accusing the government of prioritizing large-scale, foreign-backed infrastructure and resource-based projects which bring few direct benefits to residents in the southwest.

In this sense, the conflict and its drivers are largely a tale of competing narratives: whilst the separatists claim the government ignores their long-standing grievances related to poverty and underdevelopment, the government argues that insurgent activity is holding the province back and restricting economic growth.

All previous peace-making efforts – which can be described as limited at best – have achieved little. The provincial government is weak and has failed to adequately mediate between politicians in Islamabad, the military and the numerous Baloch separatist groups. A proposed government amnesty programme has also failed to gain traction as violence has continued on both sides.

Unless the central government makes a concerted attempt to initiate meaningful dialogue involving all stakeholders, allows greater media access and demonstrates a willingness to discuss the core grievances of the Baloch population, the prospects for a lasting ceasefire remain slim. The longer the current status-quo continues, the conflict will remain intractable and existing divisions will be further entrenched. Seven decades on from the first uprising against the Pakistani state in Balochistan, the hope for a peaceful resolution looks as far away as ever.

About the author:
*Michael Hart is a freelance writer in international politics, focusing primarily on civil conflict in Africa and the geopolitics of South-East Asia. Hart is currently studying an MA in International Relations at the University of Westminster, undertaking dissertation on the role of political rhetoric in the South China Sea disputes. In 2013 Hart graduated with a BA in Human Geography from the University of Exeter, and has written for online publications including Geopolitical Monitor and World Review, and runs a blog providing news and analysis of conflicts which are under-reported in the mainstream news media: https://geopoliticalconflict.wordpress.com/

Egypt Condemns North Korea Nuclear Test, Despite Economic Cooperation

0
0

Egypt has condemned North Korea’s nuclear test, warning of threats to regional security.

The Foreign Ministry expressed worries that the escalating activity could unleash a nuclear arms race in the region.

The statement on Monday comes nearly 10 days after the US announced it was withholding millions of dollars in aid to Egypt over human rights concerns.

Observers, however, have noted that the move is also linked to Egypt’s relations with North Korea as the US continues to isolate it economically and politically.

In a phone call in July, President Donald Trump gave a thinly veiled warning to Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to stop its economic cooperation with Pyongyang.

Emergency session

Egypt’s condemnation comes as the UN Security Council holds its second emergency meeting in a week on Monday about North Korea after a powerful nuclear test explosion added another layer of urgency for diplomats wrestling with what to do about the North’s persistent weapons programmes.

Scheduled after North Korea said it detonated a hydrogen bomb underground on Sunday, the emergency session comes six days after the council strongly condemned Pyongyang’s “outrageous” launch of a ballistic missile over Japan.

Less than a month ago, the council imposed its stiffest sanctions so far on the reclusive nation.

North Korea is “deliberately undermining regional peace and stability,” the council said on Tuesday when it rebuked the missile test, reiterating demands for the country to halt its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programmes.

The North trumpeted “perfect success” Sunday in its sixth nuclear test blast since 2006.

Requested by the United States, Japan, France, Britain and South Korea, the Security Council meeting on Monday could bring additional condemnation and discussion of other potential steps.

British Prime Minister Theresa May called in a statement on Sunday for speeding the implementation of existing sanctions and “looking urgently” at new measures in the council.

The group aimed to take a big bite out of the North Korean economy earlier this month by banning the North from exporting coal, iron, lead and seafood products. Together, those are worth about a third of the country’s $3 billion in exports last year.

The council could look to sanction other profitable North Korean exports, such as textiles. Another possibility could be tighter limits on North Korean labourers abroad; the recent sanctions barred giving any new permits for such workers.

The US also suggested some other ideas earlier this summer, including air and maritime restrictions and restricting oil to North Korea’s military and weapons programmes.

Original source

China Could Buy Oil With Gold-Backed Yuan – OpEd

0
0

The world’s top oil importer, China, is preparing to launch a crude oil futures contract denominated in Chinese yuan and convertible into gold, potentially creating the most important Asian oil benchmark and allowing oil exporters to bypass US-dollar denominated benchmarks by trading in yuan, Nikkei Asian Review reports.

The crude oil futures will be the first commodity contract in China open to foreign investment funds, trading houses, and oil firms. The circumvention of U.S. dollar trade could allow oil exporters such as Russia and Iran, for example, to bypass U.S. sanctions by trading in yuan, according to Nikkei Asian Review. To make the yuan-denominated contract more attractive, China plans the yuan to be fully convertible in gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong exchanges.

Last month, the Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary Shanghai International Energy Exchange, INE, successfully completed four tests in production environment for the crude oil futures, and the exchange continues with preparatory works for the listing of crude oil futures, aiming for the launch by the end of this year.

“The rules of the global oil game may begin to change enormously,” Luke Gromen, founder of U.S.-based macroeconomic research company FFTT, told Nikkei Asia Review.

Yes, the rules are changing. Welcome to a truly multi-polar world, where nations no longer have to be shackled to the dollar:

China’s pricing of assets in yuan – coupled with the Hong Kong Stock Exchange’s plan to sell physical gold contracts priced in the currency – will create a system where countries can sidestep the US banking system, Tinker said in an Aug 30 note.

“Having accepted payment for oil or gas in yuan, the seller, be it Russia or Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter, does not have to worry about having excess yuan, they can simply trade it back into gold,” Tinker said.

“We are moving to a multi-polar world.”

Ron Paul: Government ‘Aid’ Makes Disasters Worse – OpEd

0
0

Texans affected by Hurricane Harvey, including my family and me, appreciate the outpouring of support from across the country. President Donald Trump has even pledged to donate one million dollars to relief efforts. These private donations will be much more valuable than the as much as 100 billion dollars the federal government is expected to spend on relief and recovery. Federal disaster assistance hinders effective recovery efforts, while federal insurance subsidies increase the damage caused by natural disasters.

Federal disaster aid has existed since the early years of the republic. In fact, it was a payment to disaster victims that inspired Davy Crockett’s “Not Yours to Give” speech. However, the early federal role was largely limited to sending checks. The federal government did not become involved in managing disaster relief and recovery until the 20th century. America did not even have a federal agency dedicated solely to disaster relief until 1979, when President Jimmy Carter created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by executive order. Yet, Americans somehow managed to rebuild after natural disasters before 1979. For example, the people of Galveston, Texas successfully rebuilt the city following a major hurricane that destroyed the city in 1900.

FEMA’s well-documented inefficiencies are the inevitable result of centralizing control over something as complex as disaster recovery in a federal bureaucracy. When I served in Congress, I regularly voted against federal disaster aid for my district. After the votes, I would hear from angry constituents, many of whom would later tell me that after dealing with FEMA they agreed that Texas would be better off without federal “help.”

Following natural disasters, individuals who attempt to return to their own property — much less try to repair the damage — without government permission can be arrested and thrown in jail. Federal, state, and local officials often hinder or even stop voluntary rescue and relief efforts.

FEMA is not the only counterproductive disaster assistance program. The National Flood Insurance Program was created to provide government-backed insurance for properties that could not obtain private insurance on their own. By overruling the market’s verdict that these properties should not be insured, federal flood insurance encourages construction in flood-prone areas, thus increasing the damage caused by flooding.

Just as payroll taxes are unable to fully fund Social Security and Medicare, flood insurance premiums are unable to fund the costs of flood insurance. Federal flood insurance was almost $25 billion in the red before Hurricane Harvey. Congress will no doubt appropriate funding to pay all flood insurance claims, thus increasing the national debt. This in turn will cause the Federal Reserve to print more money to monetize that debt, thus hastening the arrival of the fiscal hurricane that will devastate the US economy. Yet, there is little talk of offsetting any of the costs of hurricane relief with spending cuts!

Congress should start phasing out the federal flood insurance program by forbidding the issuance of new flood insurance policies. It should also begin reducing federal spending on disaster assistance. Instead, costs associated with disaster recovery should be made 100-percent tax-deductible. Those who suffered the worst should be completely exempted from all federal tax liability for at least two years. Tax-free savings accounts could also help individuals save money to help them bear the costs of a natural disaster.

The outpouring of private giving and volunteer relief efforts we have witnessed over the past week shows that the American people can effectively respond to natural disasters if the government would get out of their way.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Syrian Democratic Forces Clear Great Mosque Of Raqqa

0
0

Coalition officials offered congratulations Monday to the Syrian Democratic Forces on the successful Sept. 2 clearance of the Great Mosque of Raqqa.

The seizure of Raqqa’s Old City district, and especially the Great Mosque, is a milestone in the ongoing battle to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in Raqqa and all of Syria Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials said in a statement.

In addition, officials noted, the Syrian Democratic Forces and Syrian Arab Coalition evacuated thousands of civilians and went to great lengths to limit damage to infrastructure, including to the ancient mosque.

Dedication and Courage

The Great Mosque is the oldest mosque in the city and has been under ISIS control since 2014, when the terrorist group captured the city. ISIS deliberately and consistently uses protected civilian infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and mosques as headquarters, weapons factories and finance hubs, officials said.

“The liberation of this historic landmark is a testimony to the dedication and courage of the SDF as they fight to defeat ISIS in Raqqa,” said coalition spokesman Army Col. Ryan Dillon. “The SDF have made consistent incremental gains in the urban terrain of the city, fighting block by block, and applying increasing pressure on ISIS each day while evacuating civilians along the way.”
The coalition provides the SDF with equipment, training, intelligence, precision fire support and military advice to leaders as they fight to defeat ISIS in Raqqa and throughout Syria, officials said.


India And South Asia – Analysis

0
0

By Kazi Anwarul Masud

Why, one may ask, despite common cultural heritage and long bonds of history and added to these factors was Indian humanitarian intervention during the Bangladesh Liberation War Indo-Bangladesh relations, notwithstanding public diplomacy by the authorities of the two countries, a portion of the people of Bangladesh do not like India’s “hegemonic” attitude towards this country.

Lacking the resources of Pew Research Center Polls it is difficult to find out the degree of anti-Indianism in Bangladesh. The ascendency of BJP in India (democratically elected and an entirely internal matter for the Indian people) it is difficult to remain indifferent about political developments in a country that affects others’ life and no less almost every facet of the economy. Bangladesh cannot afford American “new sovereigntists” or “American exceptionalism” (neither could the USA in today’s multipolarism with the rising of the rest, particularly emerging economies of China and India).

Harish Khare, a former Media Advisor of the Indian Prime Minister who remained in Prime Minister’s Office from June 2009 to January 2012 wrote (“A Dangerous Arrogance of Power Is Setting on 14/07/2017) As democratic institutions – cabinet, bureaucracy, media, presidency and judiciary – weaken, the Modi establishment is riding high on overconfidence. This is bad news for the Indian polity…. Never before was such a convergence of timidity and opportunism seen as now among these three institutions; there seems to be a veritable race to reduce them to the role of a spear-carrier for the prime minister.” Another critic Promod K Nayar (University of Hyderabad- The Signs of a Dystopian Democracy Are All around Us 25/07/2017) writes: “Two possible forms of the dystopian turn are visible now. In one form, there is an enhanced emphasis on homogenisation and cultural standardisation in the ‘larger interests of the nation’.

This immediately brings to the fore the so-called problem of cultural differences. Ethnic, racial and cultural identities are constitutive of the very humanity of the members of those groups…. In another form, dystopian democracy is marked not by the fear of an across-the-border ‘other’, which would be the well-recognised xenophobia of all nationalisms. Rather, it is marked by what can only be thought of, clumsily, as endo-xenophobia, the cultivated and constructed fear of those citizens increasingly seen as ‘foreign’ by virtue of their diet, their taste in sporting teams or their preference for film stars and films of certain nationalities/ethnicities”.

Veteran Indian journalist Prem Shsankar Jha sees in Prime Minister Narendar Modi’s “grandiose” speeches a camouflage for the creation of a state “ that will confront, not accommodate, its neighbours; this state will not tolerate cultural heterogeneity, but seek to replace it with a single homogenised culture that Modi mistakenly believes to be Hindutva. Muslims, and other minorities, will be tolerated in this entity so long as they know their place. Religious pluralism will be tolerated (but not accepted), as former vice president Hamid Ansari pointed out in Banglalore but cultural pluralism will not. For the minorities, the path to success will be through cultural assimilation. In sum, Modi is intent upon changing the very idea of nationhood upon which India’s political identity has been based not just for the past 70, but the past 2,000 years.” Jha adds that Narendra Modi is leading India into deadly peril. If he continues down this road, India’s failure as a state is guaranteed (THE WIRE Modi Is Taking India to a Dangerous Place by Prem Shankar Jha on 17/08/2017). Should one assume that Bangladesh being a predominantly Muslim majority country Indian policy in South Asia will change (Nepal is predominantly Hindu and Bhutan is Buddhist while Pakistan and Afghanistan have Muslim population)? Public diplomacy does not give any credence that religion will have any impact on Indo-Bangladesh relations.

Could religion be an impediment in cementing Bangladesh- India relations? German philosopher Jurgen Habermas to the surprise of many has recently emphasized both religions’ prominence in the contemporary public sphere and its potential contributions to critical thought. Habermas argues that the once widely accepted hypothesis of progressive secularization fails to account for the multiple trajectories of modernization in the contemporary world. He calls attention to the contemporary significance of “post metaphysical” thought and “post secular” consciousness – even in Western societies that have embraced a rationalistic understanding of public reason. (November 2013).

In the Indian sub-continent one could try to trace the history of India since 7th century when Islam entered in the then India with the conquest of Sindh by Mohammed bin Quasem. While early Muslim rule was from 1206 to 1398 the Mughal era was from 1526 to 1857 when the first war on independence against the British ended in defeat. Despite protestation to the contrary Indo-Bangladesh relations can only be better.

For the critics or believers in ultra-nationalism/ (Islamist terrorists) the question facing Bangladesh authorities, irrespective of the fact whichever party remains in power, is whether Bangladesh can afford to follow an anti-India policy without thwarting its socio-economic development? One can always argue that national interest should guide national policy even if the policy goes contrary to the policy of a powerful neighbor. It is easier said than done. In the case of Brexit almost half of the British people voted against the Brexit while the other half voted to remain. Each voter had the primacy of national interest in mind. Henry Kissinger defended his policy on Vietnam War as national interest dictated to him at that time. Henry Morgenthau described national interest as survival—the protection of physical, political and cultural identity against encroachments by other nation-states. Equally Brookings Institution defined national interest as “What a nation feels to be necessary to its security and well being … National interest reflects the general and continuing ends for which a nation acts.” In the ultimate analysis national interest may be defined as the policy adopted by the ruling elites at a particular time given a particular context.

After Pakistan’s breakup consequent upon the liberation of Bangladesh India emerged as the leading power in South Asia and it has been most acutely felt by her immediate neighbors. The argument proffered that Indian intervention was not totally altruistic but to deal a death blow to its greatest enemy can be explained in terms of “realism” in that India was never so scrupulous in honoring the sovereignty of others when its vital interests were involved. But then it is the nature of both established and emerging powers to flex their muscles as the US has done since the enunciation of Monroe Doctrine. If diplomacy requires deceit and use of force or hard power as defined by Joseph Nye jr then India has been an able follower of Chanakya in her dealings with neighbors.

Disquiet in India’s relations with Bangladesh had begun with the non-implementation of 1974 Mujib-Indira agreement that was further aggravated by the construction of Farakka Barrage turning a significant part of Bangladesh into a desert, affecting navigation, agriculture, environmental degradation, and hurting the livelihood of millions of people. Farakka’s adverse effects have made a section of Bangladeshis suspicious of the proposed Tipaimukh Dam to be built on the river Barak in Manipur state of India. The proposed construction is controversial in both India and Bangladesh. Many people were put off by huge imbalance in trade favoring India partly due to para- tariff and non-tariff barrier erected by India on exports from Bangladesh. It is also believed that Indian bureaucracy is reluctant to open Indian market to Bangladeshi products. Non-demarcation of maritime boundary with India that had been taken to arbitration by Bangladesh has been resolved to the satisfaction of both the parties.

Many other agreements concluded recently have contributed to the strengthening of bilateral relations. A few mentionable are:

1. Framework Agreement on Cooperation for Development Agreement lays down a framework for enhancing bilateral cooperation, including trade, investment and economic cooperation; connectivity; water resources; management of natural disasters; generation, transmission and distribution of power, scientific, educational and cultural cooperation; people to people exchanges; environmental protection; sub regional cooperation in the power sector, water resources management, physical connectivity, environment and sustainable development.

2. Protocol to the 1974 Land Boundary Agreement

3. Facilitating Overland Transit Traffic between Bangladesh and Nepal 4. MOU on Fisheries and MOU in Renewable energy 5. MOU in Renewable energy.

Globalization in any case has forced even introvert nations to come out in the open. If the main driver of the Arab Spring has been securing citizens political rights the civilianization of reclusive Myanmar appears to be an admission that no nation in the globalized world can remain an island- be it one of plenty or underdeveloped. Changing nature of security threats from traditional to non-traditional ones makes it imperative for nations of the world to unite. Hence it has become necessary, more so now with the Western economies in deep trouble, to have G-20 nations to have summits and high level contacts to smooth out the wrinkles in global politics and economy.

Ever since the end of the Cold War and fleeting US unipolar moment various scenarios are being constructed for the next world order. One such scenario urges Washington, Beijing and New Delhi to consider, if a war happens in the 21st century, it will be America-China or China-India. According to this scenario NATO intervention in Libya has shown lack of coherence of Western alliance that had served the stability of the post-Second World War world. Besides neoconservatives like Robert Kagan are convinced of Europe’s lack of centrality in global politics if not the soft power that is essential for global peace. This school of thought considers China and India to be globalization’s lead integrating agents. Russia and Japan are not considered to be serious first tier candidates for global power. In this equation Europe too is discounted as is Brazil among the BRIC nations.

But the shining China may face impediment as in two decades or so China will lose considerable number of workers who will join the aging senior group of citizens. By contrast America will add few dozen million workers and India are expected to add 100 million to the workforce. In terms of per capita income by 2030 that of the US is expected to be $ 60000/- while that of China will be $ 20000/- and that of India is expected to be $ 10000/-. The US despite its indebtedness (US Federal Gross Debt to GDP ratio updated in August 2017 was 106.10) GDP will reign over the others because both China and India will remain tethered to the proverbial ball and chain of impoverished rural poor.

Besides China may face developmental impediments in the forms of environmental damage, resource constraint, demographic aging, inequitable distribution of income among different sectors of the society, better standard of living leading people to demand greater voice in governance translated into weaker hold of the Communist Party over the people.

In case of India fractious domestic politics and inequitable division of the developmental benefit among the growing population may stay the rate of development of the economy. The inequity in the distribution of income can be gauged by the fact that both in China and India increase in per capita income has been flat between 1820 to 1950 but it increased by 68% by 1973 and 245% by 2002 and continues to grow despite global financial difficulties. The situation has been no different if we take the case of the US where between 2002 and 2007 65% of all income growth went to the top 1% of the population. The world has virtually been divided into two classes–plutocrats and the rest. Despite such skewed rich and poor equation demonstrated by occupy the Wall Street march in New York the policy makers in the Game Room of the powerful countries would be working on inclusion of China and India along with the US as future arbiters of global fate and guarantor of peace than the old alliances with Europe and Japan.

Zbigniew Brezinski and Fred Bergsten (Petersen Institute for International Economics) had advocated formation of G-2 with the US and China (The United State and China: a G-2 in the making Brookings-Oct 2011). The essence of the proposal is that these two biggest economies working together can provide global public good that the world required. The convergence between the two at present appears to be difficult because China saves too much and the US consumes too much creating disequilibrium in their economies and imbalance in trade. China uses its surplus cash to buy US Treasury bonds thus increasing American indebtedness. Unless the trade surplus countries like China starts buying and consuming more US made products the equilibrium will not be achieved. Politically and militarily G-2 appears to be a distant proposition because a rising power has the tendency to expand its influence, often through hard power, that an established power like the US would have to acquiesce in though such expansion may impinge on the areas of influence of the established power. So far Chinese use of influence in global affairs has not caused any ripples in the world. But there can be no guarantee that with the passage of time power transition will remain smooth.

For example in the case of North Korea the verbal exchange going on between President Trump and Kim Jung-un using nuclear vocabulary has introduced a grave security concern for the world. Besides disputed Spratly Islands remain unresolved and the world is not certain yet how the Chinese would finally react to the claims by other countries’ sovereignty over the Islands. Consequently as the established power cannot be sure of the real intent of the rising power it is likely to hedge its bet by roping in-In this case, countries like India, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam to counter China.

Relations with Bangladesh was bedevilled in the past with problems relating to maritime boundary demarcation ( now resolved through International Arbitration), land boundary disputes (resolved through exchange of enclaves in adverse possession), trade imbalance in favor of India and impediment imposed by India on Bangladeshi exports through para-tariff and non-tariff barrier, border killings of Bangladeshi nationals by Indian Border Security Force, Indian allegation of illegal Bangladeshi nationals entry and stay in India etc. Relations have taken a turn for the better after the assumption of power in Bangladesh by Awami League led combine of political parties. Relations with Nepal had been strained after the assumption of power as Prime Minister 2006-2009 and again 2016-2017 by Maoist leader Pushpa Kumar Dahal who openly blamed Indian machination for the downfall of his short lived government and subsequent failure to form a government. In a party conference he even urged his followers to free Nepal from Indian domination. Current Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba maintains good relations with India. In early August Nepal’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister has categorically said that Nepal would not take side on the China-India-Bhutan Doklam border dispute. He told the media that Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba will visit India from August 23-August 27 while Chinese Vice Premier will come to Nepal on August 14 on an official visit. It is not known if the Doklam issue would be discussed in Delhi or in Kathmandu. Meanwhile Bhutan has protested to China, saying the area belonged to it and accused Beijing of violating agreements that aim to maintain the status quo until the boundary dispute is resolved. India says the Chinese action to lay the road was unilateral and changes the status quo. It fears the road would allow China to cut off India’s access to its north eastern states. Nepal, a landlocked country, is virtually dominated by India commercially where Indian currency can be used in the markets.

Bhutan, another landlocked country, is also heavily dependent on India but the people are ferociously independent minded and refuses to integrate with the globalized world and believe in Gross Domestic Happiness instead of GDP as is understood throughout the world. Bhutan, a country with seven hundred people, has extremely cordial relationship with India.

With Afghanistan India has developed special relationship much to the chagrin of Pakistan though it is believed that Indian efforts are directed to counter Chinese influence and not to contain Pakistani influence in Kabul. At the moment Pak-Afghan relations are going through rough waters as both the Afghan and the US government is highly critical of the safe heaven enjoyed by the Haqqani group in Pakistan from where the terrorists launch their operations. This issue was mentioned by President Trump during the recent visit to the US by the Indian Prime Minister.

It would, therefore, appear that that it would serve Indian interest to mend her fences with her neighbors enabling the US efforts to prop up India as a counter to China as would Indian ambition for a permanent seat in the UNSC. Though not at the same economic level India could try to play the role in South Asia as Germany is playing in helping out European countries i.e. Greece to get the country out of the economic difficulties she is facing at the moment. Use of hard power by India in South Asia is going to be counterproductive if she thinks the smaller neighbors have little option but to bow down to Indian dictates. The net result may be to push the South Asian countries into the arms of China as a hedge to counter Indian efforts to dominate the region. Indian policy planners may wish to consider that Indian democratic structure is more attractive to her South Asian neighbors for establishing fruitful bilateral relations with India than with China, albeit a rising power, but with an authoritarian system of governance China yet remains inscrutable to many countries having liberal political system. In the ultimate analysis the scenario of an India countering China in Asia may be a more theoretical than a realistic proposition US wish notwithstanding. The people in South Asia would prefer both giants to have complimentary than a competitive relationship that would help millions of people of this area to get out of the poverty trap and leave a prosperous life for their children and grand children.

Pen Picture Of Trump’s Foreign Policy – OpEd

0
0

By Kazi Anwarul Masud*

Odd Arne Westadt of Harvard Kennedy School of Government (The Cold War and America’s Delusion of Victory RED CENTURY AUG. 28, 2017) is of the opinion that America’s post-Cold War triumphalism came in two versions-one of Bill Clinton’s emphasis on prosperity while the other was George W Bush’s emphasis on predominance.

It is debatable if the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on New York and Washington D.C. had not happened then “neo-Sovereigntists” and supporters of “American Exceptionalism” who got berths in Bush jr’s kitchen cabinet would have been able to take America to continue to predominate the world politics and global hegemony . Bush’s Afghanistan attack widely supported by the Americans and the world at large was necessitated by the vacuum created by Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in late 1980s that plunged the country into chaos and finally in it’s the occupation by Taliban. Bush also faced the challenge of the rise of China and India reducing US unipolarity to a fleeting episode in world history.

Westadt lamented “Both the West and Russia would have been considerably more secure today if the chance for Russia to join the European Union, and possibly even NATO, had at least been kept open in the 1990s.Instead, their exclusion has given Russians the sense of being outcasts and victims — which, in turn, has given credence to embittered jingoists like President Vladimir Putin, who see all the disasters that have befallen the country over the past generation as an American plot to reduce and isolate it.” Barak Obama’s Presidency saw a period of multilateralism where American cooperation was extended and division and discrimination was not sheltered. In Obama’s Cairo speech he told the Muslims that the fight against the terrorists was not a fight against Islam totally contradicting Samuel Huntington’s observation that Islam was the problem.

Recently when Donald Trump mused on CNN: ‘I think Islam hates us,’ he was expressing a common sentiment among many Americans. It’s not about Islamic extremism anymore – it’s a general prejudice against anything associated with Islam. New York Times early this year thought that this worldview borrows from the “clash of civilizations” thesis of Huntington, and combines straightforward warnings about extremist violence with broad-brush critiques of Islam. It sometimes conflates terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State with largely nonviolent groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots and, at times, with the 1.7 billion Muslims around the world. In its more extreme forms, this view promotes conspiracies about government infiltration and the danger that Shariah, the legal code of Islam, may take over in the United States. Those espousing such views present Islam as an inherently hostile ideology whose adherents are enemies of Christianity and Judaism and seek to conquer nonbelievers either by violence or through a sort of stealthy brainwashing.

In contrast despite Barak Obama’s partiality like most American politicians in favor of Israel persisted he sent his Secretary of State John Kerry for Middle East mission.

Things dramatically changed not only with the ban on Muslims entering the US with the election of Donald Trump as President he scrapped the Transatlantic Alliance and consequent abandonment of US security coverage to China who aspires to become the wealthiest nation in the world.

It is difficult to predict the course of global event. Many would differ with the idea that the US has abandoned Asia. Profesor Joseph Nye Jr. writes that China’s size and high rate of economic growth will almost certainly increase its strength in relation to the United States. But even when China becomes the world’s largest economy, it will lag decades behind the United States in per-capita income, which is a better measure of an economy’s sophistication. Moreover, given our energy resources, the U.S. economy will be less vulnerable than the Chinese economy to external shocks. Growth will bring China closer to the United States in power resources, but as Singapore’s former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew has noted, that does not necessarily mean that China will surpass the United States as the world’s most powerful country. Even if China suffers no major domestic political setbacks, projections based on growth in gross domestic product alone ignore U.S. military and “soft power” advantages as well as China’s geopolitical disadvantages in the Asian balance of power.The U.S. culture of openness and innovation will keep this country central in an information age in which networks supplement, if not fully replace, hierarchical power.( AMERICA IN THE 21ST CENTURY WILL BE DEFINED BY THE RISE OF THE REST-JOSEPH NYE JR-2013).

Who then could contest American supremacy? Surely not North Korea despite Kim Jong-Un’s nonsensical nuclear threats. Can it be Russo-China détente? But as Odd Arne Westadt says “Russia and China, unlike the Soviet Union, are not likely to seek isolation or global confrontation. They will attempt to nibble away at American interests and dominate their regions. But neither China nor Russia is willing or able to mount a global ideological challenge backed by military power. Rivalries may lead to conflicts, or even local wars, but not of the systemic Cold War kind…..What did not change with the end of the Cold War were the conflicts between the haves and the have-nots in international affairs”.

This brings us to Donald Trump’s Afghanistan policy statement of 21st August 2017. This is of direct importance for South Asia. In his speech he speaks of three fundamental conclusions about America’s core interest. First, is an honorable exit from Afghanistan. After all 17 years have passed since the Americans went in and spent billions of dollars in a chaotic and corrupt country half of which is under the control of the Taliban. .Second, Trump is aware of predictable and unacceptable consequences of a rapid exit from Afghanistan. The vacuum created would be quickly filled by ISIS and Taliban terrorists. Third, and finally, he concluded that the security threats faced in Afghanistan and the broader region are immense.

Today, 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the highest concentration in any region anywhere in the world. For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence and terror. The threat is worse because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose tense relations threaten to spiral into conflict. Repeatedly Donald Trump refers to shelter given to terrorists who are fighting the US and Afghan soldiers. “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond”. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists…..But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order and to peace”.
Pakistan naturally denied the accusation of providing shelter to the terrorists and called upon the US to work with Pakistan to eradicate terrorism.

India on the other hand welcomed President Trump’s call on Pakistan to immediately dismantle the shelters used by the terrorists. In Afghanistan there was universal positive reception from the Afghan leadership to Trump’s comments. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani welcomed the “enduring commitment” through the new strategy which he indicated “increases capacity in the Resolute Support Mission. There is, however, skepticism that despite punishment that may be given by Trump administration Pakistan will mend its ways. After all giving shelter to terrorists (Osama bin Laden comes to mind) is structurally embedded in Pakistan’s security establishment. .”

It’s nothing new for US leaders to vow to get Pakistan to change its ways,” said Michael Kugelman, a senior associate for South Asia at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Centre. “What remains to be seen is how Trump intends to compel Pakistan to alter its behavior.”He added: “In all likelihood, Pakistan is unlikely to change its ways regardless of what threat or punishment Trump comes out with.” (Strait Times Singapore With Chinese support, Pakistan can ignore Donald Trump on Afghanistan AUG 24, 2017) quotes Harsh Pant of King’s College London that With more than US$50 billion in planned infrastructure projects and strong diplomatic support for its positions, American threats to withdraw billions in military aid are becoming less worrying for the powerful army, which dominates foreign policy..”China is the shield now behind which Pakistan can be expected to continue to play its double game…. The more aid America will cut, Pakistan will be expecting China to fill the vacuum.”Pakistan has long denied it harbours terrorists. But despite rising frustration from US lawmakers over designated terrorist groups such as the Haqqani Network – who strike Afghanistan allegedly from inside Pakistan – China’s support for its ally means Pakistan does not need to alter course”. No less a greater shock came again with Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from Climate Change Agreement signed in Paris after years of negotiations.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs described President Trump’s decision on global warming as ‘sociopathic, paranoid and malevolent’; He added Trump’s utterances as “utterly delusional, deeply cynical, or profoundly ignorant. Probably all three. And they should be recognized as such.” In reality scientists from all over the world are unanimous on the catastrophic consequences of climate change. An international team of experts who issue annual report on carbon emission in its report for 2013 announced that global carbon emission was 2.3% triggering a fresh warning that “that even a ‘moderate’ warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society.” The gravity of the situation can be understood by the fact of the general consensus among scientists that aggregate emissions since industrialization began in the mid-eighteenth century must be held to a trillion metric tons. Almost 600 billion of those tons have already been emitted. If current trends continue, it will burn through the rest in the next twenty-five years. Thus, what is essential to preserving the possibility of 2 degrees is reversing these trends, and doing so immediately. The way to achieve the goal of 2% carbon emission is for the major emitters to decide on drastically limiting their emission while the victims of emission to be compensated for the acts of the emitters. Despite all these incontrovertible facts President Trump has withdrawn his country from the Paris accord.

According The New York Times the effects of climate change are already having an impact on the U.S., after average temperatures have risen dramatically over the last four decades.. The “U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report,” compiled by a group of scientists from 13 federal agencies, found with high confidence that it was “extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate. “The report is part of the National Climate Assessment, which has been congressionally mandated to be conducted at least every four years since 1990. A National Academies of Science committee reviewed the study and agreed with its accuracy. The report contradicts claims by President Donald Trumph and some members of his administration, who have disputed the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

This tour d’orgin of Donald Trump’s foreign policy is only a faint picture of a world to be unfurled in future. For now it can only be a kaleidoscope of the real world we live in.

*The writer is a retired Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh

Iraq: Islamic State Targeting Civilians To ‘Avenge’ Loss Of Tal Afar

0
0

Fighters from the Islamic State (ISIL) are indiscriminately targeting civilians to avenge for their loss of Tal Afar, the top United Nations political representative in Iraqi today said, condemning the latest attack in Baghdad.

“Da’esh terrorists have shown absolute disregard for human life,” said Ján Kubiš, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Iraq, using the Arabic acronym for ISIL.

“However, the patience and resilience of the Iraqi people have defeated the terrorists’ aim in breaking their unity,” he added.

At least 125 civilians were killed and another 188 injured in terrorist related acts in Iraq during the month of August, according to the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI). The casualty figures show that Baghdad was the worst affected area, and do not include casualty figures from ongoing fighting in Anbar province.

The overall casualty figures are lower than in previous months, where violence spiked above 2,000 in October 2016.

In a separate statement, Mr. Kubiš said that “hopeful days lie ahead for Iraq,” noting military victories against terrorists, including in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar which Iraqi forces yesterday declared liberated from ISIL.

Mr. Kubiš said this Eid al-Adha, thoughts and prayers go to all the martyrs and fighters in the liberating forces, and to those who provide support and are affected – including the millions of displaced Iraqis.

“On this Eid, the Feast of Sacrifice that Muslims celebrate worldwide, the Iraqi people who have sacrificed dearly deserve to live in peace, dignity and prosperity,” he said.

The senior UN official added that sustainable peace in the country can only be secured through inclusive solutions, addressing grievances, needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people.

Turks In Germany To Suffer From Current Squabble – OpEd

0
0

By Yasar Yakis*

Centuries-old Turkish-German relations started to run into trouble when the German Chancellor Angela Merkel promoted during her election campaign in 2003 the idea of stopping Turkey’s accession process to the EU and giving it a “privileged partnership” status instead of full membership.

Despite this electoral promise, Merkel demonstrated her statesmanship by remaining faithful to an important principle of international law, “Pacta sund servanda” (agreements have to be observed). Turkey’s EU accession negotiations had started before she became chancellor, so she did not block the negotiations, but neither did she withdraw her objection to Turkey’s full membership.

She played a crucial role in striking an agreement on March 18, 2016, to stem the flow of Syrian refugees toward the EU countries.

While bilateral relations were stumbling over minor issues, a step taken by the German parliament, the Bundestag, to recognize the so-called Armenian genocide caused more lasting damage.

Turkey reciprocated by not allowing members of the Bundestag to visit German soldiers serving at Turkey’s Incirlik military base in the fight against Daesh. Germany decided to withdraw the soldiers from Turkey and re-deploy them in Jordan. The escalation continued in March 2017, ahead of the constitutional referendum to be held in Turkey on April 16, when German authorities refused to allow members of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to hold rallies in German cities where there are sizeable Turkish voters.

A German journalist of Turkish origin was imprisoned in Turkey this year on terror charges. This was followed, on July 21, by the arrest of a German human rights activist.

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel interrupted his holiday to discuss with his colleagues the measures to be taken against Turkey. He started by issuing new travel advice for Germans traveling to Turkey. It stopped short of advising Germans against all travel to Turkey, but warned that “Germans have been detained in Turkey for reasons that are incomprehensible and consular access has been denied in contravention of international obligations.”

On Aug. 19, another German citizen of Turkish origin, Dogan Akhanli, was arrested in Spain upon Turkey’s request to Interpol. Germany asked Spain not to extradite Akhanli to Turkey.

Merkel has been careful not to enter into direct collision with the Turkish president, Recip Tayyep Erdogan, especially in order to safeguard the refugee deal she spearheaded, but she decided to join the other political parties in voicing her discontent with Turkey in the run-up to the German elections later this month.

Gabriel wanted to introduce economic measures against Turkey, saying that he “cannot advise companies to invest in a country without legal certainty where even completely innocent companies are judged as being close to terrorists.”

The approaching German elections made the Turkey issue an instrument to gain support from anti-Erdogan quarters, for example Cem Ozdemir, a German politician of Turkish origin, co-chairman of the Green Party and prime ministerial candidate in Germany. He called for a ban on Turkish teachers in German schools.

Erdogan retorted by urging Turks living in Germany not to vote for political parties that attack Turkey. He referred to the CDU/CSU and SPD together with the Greens as “enemies of Turkey,” and added: “I think Turkish voters should teach a lesson to those political parties that are so aggressive and disrespectful toward Turkey.”

Merkel did not hesitate to respond in kind. Germany, she said “will not allow any kind of interference in the election and will not let anyone, including president Erdogan, influence the right of German citizens, whatever their origin, to vote freely.” Gabriel followed suit and said: “Berlin will not tolerate any Turkish meddling in German politics.”

The escalation continued when Erdogan, addressing Gabriel, said: “Who are you to speak to Turkey’s president? Know your place! What is your experience in politics? How old are you?”

There are signs that the German government is considering asking the European Investment Bank not to issue any further credits to Turkey. So far Turkey has received about €25 billion in credits, mainly to the municipalities.

If implemented, these are serious threats to Turkish-German relations. Germany is a major trade partner of Turkey. Bilateral trade volume amounts to $35 billion, and 6,400 German companies are active in Turkey. There are about 100,000 Turkish-German businesses in Germany, employing about 500,000 people.

If relations continue to worsen, there will be considerable economic losses for both sides, but the effects on Turkey’s economy will be more damaging because the German economy is much bigger. Economic losses could be made up one way or another, but the biggest losers will be the Turks in Germany, since they may be deprived of innumerable benefits they enjoy at present.

• Yasar Yakis is a former foreign minister of Turkey and founding member of the ruling AK Party.

US Wants ‘Strongest Possible’ UN Sanctions Against North Korea

0
0

(RFE/RL) — The U.S. envoy to the United Nations has said the United States plans to circulate a new resolution on North Korea this week and wants a vote next week by the Security Council.

“Enough is enough. War is never something the United States wants. We don’t want it now. But our country’s patience is not unlimited,” Nikki Haley told an emergency session of the Security Council on September 4, a day after North Korea detonated what it called a hydrogen bomb.

Haley urged the council to impose the strongest possible measures to deter North Korea from further steps on its nuclear program. The emergency session was requested by the United States, Japan, France, Britain, and South Korea.

Haley said the United States would engage in negotiations this week on the resolution and said Pyongyang “has slapped everybody in the face” with its latest nuclear test. She added that the United States will circulate a draft for a vote on September 10.

Haley added that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, was “begging for war.”

“The time has come to exhaust all diplomatic means before it is too late,” she said.

The North trumpeted “perfect success” on September 3 in its sixth nuclear test explosion since 2006.

It appeared to be North Korea’s most powerful nuclear test, with South Korea estimating its strength at 50 kilotons — five times the size of the North’s previous nuclear test in September 2016 and more than three times bigger than the U.S. device that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his South Korean counterpart, Moon Jae-in, spoke by phone on September 4 and resolutely condemned North Korea’s latest nuclear test, the Kremlin said in a statement.

The Kremlin said Putin had told Moon that the only way to resolve the crisis was through diplomacy and talks.

Russia regarded Pyongyang’s latest test as a serious threat to peace and security in the region, the Kremlin said.

Russia’ UN envoy, Vassily Nebenzia, in his statement to the Security Council emergency session, echoed Putin’s position, saying that the North’s test showed that “peace in the region is in serious jeopardy.”

But Nebenzia said that military solutions could not resolve the crisis, adding that there was an “urgent need to maintain a cool head, and refrain from actions that can escalate tensions.”

China’s ambassador to the UN, Liu Jieyi, again urged diplomatic talks to address the crisis, and told the council that Beijing would not allow chaos and war on the Korean Peninsula.

“The situation on the peninsula is deteriorating constantly as we speak, falling into a vicious circle,” Liu said. “The peninsula issue must be resolved peacefully. China will never allow chaos and war on the peninsula.”

China’s proposal for a freeze on North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests in exchange for a suspension of U.S.-South Korea military drills is backed by Russia. China is the North’s main economic partner and its only diplomatic ally.

Other Security Council members, including Japan and France, are calling for further sanctions. The council already imposed its stiffest sanctions so far on North Korea last month.

Germany, which is not a permanent member of the Security Council, also urged stricter sanctions against the North.

Chancellor Angela Merkel told U.S. President Donald Trump during a phone conversation on September 4 that she will press for stricter EU sanctions on Pyongyang, a German government statement said.

Merkel also talked on the phone to South Korean President Moon on September 4, and condemned Pyongyang’s latest nuclear test, a German government spokesman said.

“In light of North Korea’s unreasonable and confrontational stance, the chancellor and the president voiced their support for the international community to rapidly adopt additional stricter sanctions,” spokesman Steffen Seibert said.

“The common objective is to avoid a military escalation and to reach a peaceful solution,” Sebiert added.

The emergency session comes less than a week after the council strongly condemned the North’s “outrageous” launch of a ballistic missile over Japan.

Meanwhile, South Korea says it has seen indications that North Korea is preparing more missile launches, possibly an intercontinental ballistic missile.

The Defense Ministry said on September 4 that it was strengthening its U.S.-made THAAD missile-defense system, whose deployment south of Seoul has been strongly opposed by China and Russia.

Donald Trump’s Ultimatum To Pakistan: Will US Walk The Talk? – Analysis

0
0

By Bhaskar Roy*

On August 21, US President Donald Trump threatened Pakistan with heavy retribution if Islamabad did not close down terrorist havens on its soil and drive out these elements. He specifically mentioned the Afghan Taliban and the Al Qaeda, but in a manner referred to all Pakistan – supported terrorists (including understandably those that continuously target India). Before this, the US listed Hizbul Mujahidin as a terrorist organisation and its leader Sayed Salahuddin as a leader of the terrorist organisation. Pakistan protested that the Hizbul and Salahuddin were not terrorists but freedom fighters.

Pakistan failed to read Trump and his cabinet and security establishment heads. He has in his cabinet ex-Generals who look at war and conflicts from a soldier’s point of view and not from the perspective of politicians and diplomats. Some of them have been tested in Afghanistan, but have been hamstrung by civilians in Washington.

Defense Secretary James Mattis is a retired army general and reported to be a no nonsense man. Present White House Chief of Staff, John F. Kelly is a retired marine four star general. Head of National Security Affairs (NSA) H. R. Macmaster is also a retired general.

There are very important players – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the senior most diplomat and Trump’s hand-picked man, the CIA, the FBI, as well as congressmen. Senator John McCain, the highly decorated Vietnam War veteran has prepared a bill to declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terror. The final word is that of President Trump unless he withdraws his statement with one of his early morning tweets.

In his address at Fort Myers military base in Arlington, Trump admitted he had contemplated withdrawal from Afghanistan. That was his instinct and he usually follows through with his instincts. But after his inauguration he tasked Defense Secretary Mattis and his security team to review all options in Afghanistan and South Asia. In conclusion, his address came at Fort Myers. Trump’s chief strategist Stave Banon, a strong votary for American withdrawal from Afghanistan exited the White House before this speech, which may have made Trump’s task a little easier. Another Banon acolyte, Sebastian Gorka, was recently shown the door from the White House.

Trump was forthright. He made it clear that Pakistan was providing safe haven to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and others who were killing American personnel in Afghanistan while receiving billions of dollars in American aid. He, however, did not stop at American casualties but pointed out that these terrorists harboured by Pakistan pose a threat to the region and beyond. The meaning was clear, since it quite obviously included the threat to India. The 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai which was launched by the ISI using Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), has not been forgotten, and the 9/11 attack in the USA is still fresh in the minds of the American people.

Trump has not closed the door on Pakistan, however. He recalled that in the past Pakistan had been a valued partner, with both militaries working together against common enemies. He also took into account the fact that Pakistani people had suffered from terrorism. But Pakistan had to change immediately, if the partnership was to continue. That message was emphatically conveyed. If Islamabad wants to continue to receive that aid, they have to expel the Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network.

General John Nicholson, head of US forces in Afghanistan has recently reiterated that Taliban leaders live in safe havens in Quetta and Peshawar. They are known as the Quetta Shura and the Peshawar Shura. Sartaj Aziz, former foreign policy advisor to now outsted Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, had admitted their presence in Pakistan. This is no secret to any interested Pakistan-watcher in the world.

Yet, Pakistan’s foreign office brazenly and unashamedly repeats ad nauseam that no Taliban leaders or elements are in Pakistan, that Pakistan does not allow its soil to be used against any country. This has become an international joke.

It would be recalled that in the aftermath of 9/11, 2001 President George W. Bush gave Pakistan the ultimation “you are either with us, or against us”. Pakistani President, General Parvez Musharraf was shaken. It is a well-kept secret that Musharraf made a hurried trip to China to seek their support and advice. The Islamabad airport was closed down at night and reopened late morning. The flying time between Islambad and Beijing is 7 hours. But the time difference is 5 hours east to west. Musharraf could easily have an hour or two’s discussion with the Chinese and be in his office in the morning. Even the Pakistani ambassador did not know about this, only one person in the embassy did. The Chinese apparently advised Musharraf to cooperate with the Americans.

The international community heard other dire and threatening voices from Washington at that time. It is alleged that US Deputy Secretary of State. Richard Armitage had remarked to his Pakistani interlocutors, that “we can bomb you to the stone age”.

Musharraf opened almost three-fourths of Pakistani air space to the Americans. They bombed the Tora Bora caves in Afghanistan, but Osama Bin Laden and his top Shura members survived. A hundred thousand pairs of boots from the US and its allies and NATO were put on Afghanistan’s soil. The Taliban and their Pakistani military advisors and military personnel were pushed out from the stronghold in Kandahar. Pakistan was made a major non-NATO ally, a position it still enjoys. Billions of dollars were poured into Pakistan. Americans Afghan war financing reached two trillion dollars.

Pakistan continued to do what they do best-obfuscate, lie, and use those American dollars and military assistance to fund the Haqqani network and the Taliban, and strengthen it military capacity against India.

Declassified US intelligence has recorded that Pakistan’s ISI funded the Haqqani network to annihilate the all women CIA post near the Pakistan-Afghan border. The US, at the highest level, gave hard proof to Pakistan at the highest level, that intelligence provided to the Pakistani army and the ISI on terrorist locations were shared with the very same terrorists before a strike, so that they could move out. Frustrating, and the US must shoulder the blame for lack of a non-cohesive strategy.

President Barack Obama’s decision to pull out troops from Afghanistan was premature. There are only just over eight thousand troops in Afghanistan to train and advise the Afghan army of around three hundred thousand. This cannot do the trick. The Afghan army is still not disciplined, cohesive and is riddled with corruption. They do not have sophisticated arms and intelligence gathering capability, especially technical intelligence gathering. At the top of the political hierarchy there are two heads namely President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. Ashraf Ghani tried to play footsie with the Pakistan army at the instance of the US. He got his feet burnt. Dr. Abdullah totally distrusts Pakistani army and the deep state, the movers and shakers in Pakistan.

Dr. Abdullah has gone through both the wars in Afghanistan. He was an acolyte of Ahmed Shah Masood, the lion of Panjsher who was assassinated by the ISI Taliban combine. Ashraf Ghani has been somewhat itinerant. The US needs to look at this duo strategically.

Pakistan’s government, army and politicians were infuriated by two aspects of President Trump’s speech. First was insulting Pakistan publicly to the world. They called it “scape goating”, crying hoarse that they made the biggest sacrifice in lives and money while fighting terrorism.

While it is true that a huge number of lives, both civilian and military, were lost, who were these terrorists that Pakistan was fighting against? It was mainly the Tehrik-e-Taliban, Pakistan (TTP), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) and some such others. These tanzims were created by Pakistan’s deep state to fight in Afghanistan, and attack and kill Shia Muslims. But this strategy blew up in Pakistan’s face. The TTP turned against the government because their demand for complete Sharia law was not moving. The LEJ was black listed because Iran, a Shia country which shares a border with Pakistan, was outraged. But killing of Shias and bombing their mosques continue. As Hillary Clinton, Secretary of state in Obama’s Presidency had told her Pakistani interlocutors. “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours … eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard”.

Pakistan is in a bind because of the policy of using terrorism as a foreign policy initiative in the region, especially against Afghanistan and India, and periodically in Bangladesh, its erstwhile territory which broke away and became independent in 1971. The civilian government in Islamabad has little say in foreign policy in the neighbourhood, the USA and China. Those are controlled by the GHQ in Rawalpindi.

This atmosphere is creating space for the ISIS which has declared its Khorasan initiative in the Pak-Afghan border region. According to unverified reports elements from the TTP, Afghan Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network are joining ISIS Khorasan.

Pakistan has got itself into a position even if, theoretically it wants to discard the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network and the Al Qaeda, it will be besieged by these terrorists that they spawned. The chicken will come home to roost at some point of time. There will be mayhem, and Pakistan’s nuclear assets could be at risk. The military has no end game, and they have demolished political and intellectual discourse.

The second issue is Trump’s speech was asking India to play a greater development role in Afghanistan. He did not ask India to play a military role in Afghanistan, and India would not do it anyway. But all sections in Pakistan went ballistic. The foreign office spokesman Nafees Zakaria said that India was “involved in state sponsored terrorism” and cannot bear effective partner in bringing peace to the region.

The Pakistan National Assembly passed an unanimous resolution (Aug 30) rejecting US President Donald Trump’s “hostile and threatening” statements, condemned Washington’s call for increased Indian involvement in Afghanistan, and called on US, NATO, and Afghan government to ensure India was denied use of Afghan territory to attack Pakistan. But they have failed to provide any concrete evidence. In this connection it may be recalled that in 2009 when a visiting Sri Lankan cricket team suffered a terrorist attack, then Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik declared that he had proof that it was an Indian conspiracy, and he would “show it at the right time”.

That “right time” never came. The truth came out in the Pakistani media. The attack was by a group of Pakistani terrorists, and a crude attempt by the deep state to frame India. Pakistan’s cricket lost and even today teams are unwilling to go on a Pakistan tour.

Coming to reality, US needs Pakistan for their Afghan policy. Following Trump’s speech there was a reassessment of his Afghan policy statement. US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford underlined Pakistan’s role in bringing peace to Afghanistan.

The US has huge stakes in Pakistan. It requires Pakistan’s territory and airspace to feed their military in Afghanistan. The US could have found another route through Central Arian countries. But the visceral hatred for Russia, and poking Moscow in the ribs even today, has closed that option.

Washington does not want Pakistan to fall firmly into the laps of China and Russia. Yet, it is doing so in more than one way. Softer words on Pakistan are coming out of Washington.

Two take aways. President Trump said that involvement in Afghanistan is open ended, based on ground realities. Next, there will be no nation building. Afghanistan will decide its country’s politics including with the Afghan Taliban.

This is the new reality. The Afghanistan situation is in for a long and bloody haul.

*The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com

Mobile Phone Use While Pregnant Not Linked To Child Neurodevelopment Problems

0
0

Mobile phone use during pregnancy is unlikely to have any adverse effects on child neurodevelopment, according to new research published in the open access journal BMC Public Health.

These findings provide further evidence that exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields associated with maternal use of mobile phones during pregnancy is not linked to neurodevelopment in children.

Dr Eleni Papadopoulou, lead author from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, said, “The concern for harm to the foetus caused by radio frequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones, is mainly driven by reports from experimental animal studies with inconsistent results. Even though this is an observational study, our findings do not support the hypothesis of adverse effects on child’s language, communication and motor skills due to the use of mobile phone during pregnancy.”

The researchers analysed data from a large Norwegian population-based pregnancy cohort study called MoBa, which involves a range of data collected from mothers and children during and after pregnancy. Data used in this study included 45,389 mother-child pairs for whom self-reported questionnaire data was available on maternal mobile phone use and neurodevelopment follow ups of the children at ages 3 and 5.

Professor Jan Alexander, senior author from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, said, “Our investigation revealed for the first time that maternal mobile phone use may actually have a positive impact. More specifically, mobile phone use in pregnancy was associated with lower risk of the child having low language and motor skills at 3 years of age. Although we adjusted for important socio-demographic characteristics as well as maternal personality and psychological factors, we think this protective effect is more likely to be explained by factors not measured in this study having an impact on the mobile phone use and child’s neurodevelopment, rather than the maternal mobile phone use in itself.”

The researchers found that children born to mobile phone users had a 27% lower risk of having lower sentence complexity, 14% lower risk of incomplete grammar and 31% lower risk of having moderate language delay at age 3, compared to children of mothers who reported no mobile phone use.

They also found that children born to mobile phone users had an 18% lower risk of low motor skills at age 3, compared to children born to non-users of mobile phones. The beneficial effects remained even after adjusting for relevant confounders and were also relative to the level of reported mobile phone use by the mother.

Professor Alexander said, “Our large study provides evidence that pregnant women’s use of cell phone is not associated with risk of harming neurodevelopment of the foetus. The beneficial effects we report should be interpreted with caution due to the limitations common in observational studies, but our findings should at least alleviate any concern mothers have about using their mobile phone while pregnant.”


Pakistan: The Mask Of Politics – Analysis

0
0

By Ajit Kumar Singh*

With the United States exerting more pressure, there seems to be urgency among terrorist formations/individual leaders operating out of Pakistani soil to gain ‘political legitimacy’ to counter any further existential threat.

On September 30, 2014, Maulana Fazlur Rehman Khalil, founder of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM) which operates in Indian Jammu & Kashmir, reportedly decided to form his own political party. Khalil was declared a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” by the US on September 30, 2014.

Khalil confirmed this decision in an August 25, 2017, report:

Yes, I have been in touch with my colleagues and followers and we have even finalized a name for the party – Islah-e-Watan Party (IWP). For this purpose, the central Shura (executive committee) would soon meet to finalise details… We would like to condemn the derogatory statement made recently by US President (Donald) Trump. The US needs to know that Pakistan is neither Syria nor Iraq. If any step is taken against Pakistan, we would turn our lands into a graveyard for aggressive forces.”

Media reports quoted an unnamed source in the group as saying, “Maulana (Khalil) has taken a lead from Maulana Makki’s [Abdul Rehman Makki] decision to mainstream his (banned) outfit.” Abdul Rehman Makki is the second in command of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD).

It is pertinent to recall here that Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the ‘chief’ of JuD, the frontal organization of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, launched his political party, Milli Muslim League (MML), on August 7, 2017.

Currently under ‘house arrest’ in Lahore, Saeed has ‘nominated’ Saifullah Khalid as the President of MML.

Saifullah Khalid, a religious scholar and longtime ‘official’ of the JuD, at the formal launch of the MML party in Islamabad, announced,

We have decided to make a new political party, so that Pakistan is made a real Islamic and welfare state. Once he [Saeed] is released we will seek his guidance and ask what role he wants in this political party. We demand an immediate release of Hafiz Saeed.
Tabish Qayoum, a JuD activist who will work as spokesman for MML, disclosed that JuD had filed registration papers for the new party with Pakistan’s election commission.

Saeed along with another four JuD members was put under house arrest in Lahore on January 30, 2017. They were detained under Section 11-EEE of Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act, which gives the Government the power to arrest or detain terrorism suspects for up to 12 months. The other four included Abdullah Ubaid, Zafar Iqbal, Abdur Rehman Abid and Qazi Kashif Niaz. Significantly, Saeed was put under ‘house arrest’ soon after Donald Trump assumed power in the US on January 20, 2017.

Saeed had been declared a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” by the US on May 27, 2008, and was added to the UN 1267/1989 Consolidated List on December 10, 2008. On April 2, 2012, the US announced a bounty of USD 10 million for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Saeed for his alleged involvement in terrorist attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks that killed at least 166 people, including six Americans.

Meanwhile, on August 16, 2017, the US designated Hizb-ul-Mujahiddeen (HM) a “Foreign Terrorist Organisation”, within two months of declaring the its ‘chief’ Yusuf Shah aka Syed Salahuddin as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” on June 26, 2017. Salahuddin has for long been holding mass rallies across Pakistan and is believed to have strong mass base.

With mounting international pressure (especially the US), more such terrorist formations are likely to join the ‘political mainstream’ at a time when National Assembly elections are due in less than a year. Significantly, established political parties are currently in a crises, with the ruling party, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), facing serious problems in the aftermath of the ouster of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Panama Papers case. The main opposition Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Imran Khan-led Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) are also not on a strong footing, each riddled with its own controversies and scandals.

Given the past track record of all these parties – PML-N, PPP, PTI – there will be no surprise if they readily agree to ally with any of these ‘terrorist political parties’ to win the upcoming elections, or in a situation of weak or no majorities for any single formation.

Significantly, each of these parties had tried to woo Islamist extremists, and particularly the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), before the 2014 elections. Despite then-TTP chief Hakimullah Mehsud’s declaration that “democracy is the system of infidels”, Nawaz Sharif repeatedly advocated a policy of appeasement towards the Taliban. In May 2013, he had declared, “A few weeks ago, the Taliban (TTP) offered dialogue to the Government of Pakistan and said, ‘we are prepared to talk’. I think the Government of Pakistan should have taken that seriously. [It] did not take it seriously.”

Similarly, PTI has taken a soft line on the extremists. Its leader Imran Khan continuously advocated a negotiated settlement with the TTP and its affiliates and, on April 22, 2013, had observed, “the Pakistan Tehrik-e-insaf will pull the Army out of the Pashtun-dominated tribal areas and restore peace through talks if it comes to power in the May 11 (2014) general election”. Earlier, in October 2012, Imran Khan had claimed that the Taliban were fighting a ‘holy war’ justified by Islam in neighbouring Afghanistan: “It is very clear that whoever is fighting for their freedom is fighting a jihad… The people who are fighting in Afghanistan against the foreign occupation are fighting a jihad.”

The PPP’s approach towards TTP and its affiliates was comparably accommodating. On February 4, 2013, the then Federal Minister for Interior Rehman Malik declared, “We are ready to start talks with you (TTP). You tell us what team you would like to talk to, and let’s set an agenda.” Further, PPP leader and former Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari had close ties with the Taliban. According to a June 14, 2010, media report, while meeting 50 captured Taliban leaders including Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in a prison to assure them that their outfit had his Government’s full support and that they would be freed soon, Zardari had reportedly stated, “You are our people, we are friends, and after your release we will of course support you to do your operations.”

The Sharif brothers’ (Shahbaz Sharif has been the longtime Chief Minister of the Punjab Province) closeness to JuD is also well known. In the most brazen move, Saeed reportedly (April 2016 reports) set up a Sharia’h (Islamic law) court in Lahore to dispense “speedy justice”, taking up citizens’ complaints and issuing summons carrying a warning of strict action in case of non-compliance. It was the first instance of such a parallel judicial system being established in the Punjab province. JuD claimed the ‘court’ only offers arbitration and resolves disputes in accordance with the Islamic judicial system, but failed to justify the summons. The impunity with which Saeed operated clearly confirms the support he receives from the ruling Pakistani establishment, in addition to the significant resources his organization has received from the state exchequer.

More recently, photographs featuring the then Federal Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan with Maulana Ahmed Ludhianvi, the leader of the ‘banned’ sectarian terrorist Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat (ASWJ), had surfaced on social media. When a hue and cry was raised, the Minister was unrepentant and, indeed, offered a defence of ASWJ, stating, on January 14, 2017, that the Shia-Sunni conflict dated back 1300 years and was a part of Islamic history, and it was unfair (with regard to terrorism) to “link everything with ASWJ’s Chief”. Responding to a question in the Senate about his remarks that outlawed sectarian organisations should not be equated with terrorist outfits, Nisar raised the question whether it was “a crime” to suggest that separate laws should be formed to deal with groups proscribed on sectarian basis to remedy the “confusion being created”. In a reply to the criticism he faced from PPP for meeting with Maulana Ahmad Ludhianvi, Nisar inquired, “How is it fair to link everything to Maulana Ludhianvi? Which PPP leader did not meet leaders of proscribed organisations in their time?” PPP’s association with the banned Peoples’ Aman Committee (PAC), a Karachi based gang, is widely known . PAC, a Lyari criminal network linked to numerous targeted killings, reportedly works as PPP’s armed wing.

Meanwhile, religious fundamentalism continues to increase across Pakistan, with more and more people being killed in the name of god. According to the latest World Report, 2017, published by Human Rights Watch (HRW), at least 19 people remained on death row after being convicted under Pakistan’s draconian Blasphemy Law, and hundreds awaited trial. Most of those facing blasphemy are members of religious minorities, often victimized by these charges due to personal disputes. Further, the HRW 2015 Report suggested that, since 1990, 60 people have been murdered after being accused of blasphemy. In 2015, the National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP) reported that a total of 724 Muslims, 501 Ahmadis, 185 Christians and 26 Hindus, who had been accused under innumerable clauses of the Blasphemy Law since 1987. The majority of these cases were for desecration of the Quran followed by blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad.

In such a scenario, the danger of more terror elements infiltrating into mainstream politics is very real. Worse, it is unlikely that these groupings will give up their terrorist activities, even as a measure of political impunity is secured by engaging in the electoral process. The ‘legitimacy’ that would be gained would also tend to amplify the ambivalence that has characterized international attitudes and policies with regard to such groupings.

*Ajit Kumar Singh
Research Fellow; Institute for Conflict Management

Burma: The Rohingya Conundrum And Regional Implications – Analysis

0
0

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

On the night of August 24, Rohingyan militants staged a coordinated attack on 30 Police posts that cover more than 24 villages around Maungdaw. They also tried unsuccessfully to storm an Army Base. The attackers held only a few small arms, machetes and home made explosive bombs but no sophisticated weapons.

Ten Policemen were killed in the attack, most of them brutally hacked with sharp weapons. One Army soldier was killed in the attempt on the Army camp. In all, over 110 have been killed that included 21 of the intruders and another 38 suspected militants. One militant was reportedly captured. Operations against the Rohingyan militants are continuing resulting in the exodus of over 40,000 civilians. This was to be expected.

Location of Rakhine State in Myanmar. Source: Wikipedia Commons.
Location of Rakhine State in Burma / Myanmar. Source: Wikipedia Commons.

This attack was similar to the one staged on October 9 last year by the same group when they made coordinated attacks on three border Police posts resulting in the death of over 9 Policemen. In the resulting Army operations last year some 87,000 Rohingyas were said to have fled northern Rakhine state.

The present attack was owned up by an outfit that called itself “The Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA). The same outfit was previously known as Harakah-al-Yaqin or “Faith Movement” that instigated the previous October attacks. Perhaps to give a local colour the outfit had shed its arab name.

As expected, the Army sent reinforcements and started clearance operations that resulted in a large number of people running towards Bangladesh border. Except for a few, all the rest were not allowed to enter Bangladesh. The international media, particularly the Al Jazeera has been showing the hapless refugees stranded at the border.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) was quick to warn within three days that disproportionate military/government response without overarching political strategy will play directly into the hands of the ARSA whose aim is to further alienate the Rohingya communities, drive support for them and place the spotlight of the World back on military abuses. This has already happened.

Kofi Annan whose eleven member commission submitted its final report on the situation in the northern Rakhine State just a day prior to the attack had also pointed that a highly militarized response is “unlikely to bring peace to the area.” Instead it had recommended a nuanced, comprehensive response to “ensure that violence does not escalate and inter-communal tensions are kept under control.” Easily said- weighty words but not easy to implement in a complicated situation like that obtained on the ground.

Other points included in the report were “to accelerate the citizenship verification of qualified Rohingya followed by socio economic development coupled with freedom of movement and community participation and representation.

Thus, the Myanmar administration has been put under tremendous pressure internationally to resolve the Rohingya crisis. Knowing fully well the international repercussions on the incident ( even the Security Council met on this issue on 30th August), Aung San Suu Kyi held an urgent meeting on the same day (25th) with the Union ministers of Defence, Home affairs as well as the national Security Adviser.

The developing situation in the Rakhine State was also discussed in the Parliament when the military MPS and the Arakenese politicians joined hands to demand that administrative and security measures be intensified. The Army’s representative pointed out that security measures should be prioritized for protecting national sovereignty against terrorists instead of “feeling fear of international fear.” There was a point in what he said.

The UN Human rights chief was also quick to point out on August 30 that decades of systematic abuses against the Rohingya community were largely to blame for the spiraling violence. In other words he was willing to justify the brutal violence of the attackers on the poor police men and the aim was exactly what the attackers wanted to see. Except for some generalization no positive suggestions to make either to bring peace and harmony to the distressed region were made by the UN Chief. !

Suu Kyi’s office made a quick response to the final report of the commission and announced various steps the government had taken on the issue. These were 1. A new Ministerial-led committee responsible for the implementation of the recommendations will be established. 2. The new committee will be assisted by an Advisory Board on Rakhine 3. Healthcare has been improved in the region and schools and vocational and technical training programmes have begun 4. Hundreds of new jobs have been created for local people in Rakhine State. 5. Electrification has been expanded and opening anew SEZ is being considered. 6. Promoting religious harmony and communal relations by engaging inter faith groups 7. Most importantly a strategy and time line to move forward the National Verification Process as well as a strategy to close IDP camps in Rakhine State. New Houses are being built.

This fresh attack by the militants who appear to have international empathy has placed the armed forces in a dilemma. They are aware that international condemnation would immediately arise with an increase in operations that would inevitably be bringing accusations of human rights abuses and excessive force. The Army looks at it as a pure law and order issue affecting the nation’s sovereignty whereas the civilian government looks at it as a social/civil issue that needs a holistic approach.

It is said that the Army had earlier proposed martial law in the northern Rakhine State even before the present attack. A suggestion to convene the National Defence and Security Council by the Army where it has a majority of one has not been responded to by the President.

The Army is therefore stuck in a dilemma as any long term approach to solve the issue should be coordinated both by the Army and the Civilian government.

It was not a coincidence that the attacks took place a day after the Kofi Annan’s nine member Commission submitted it final report to both the State Counsellor and the Army Chief. It just shows total disregard of the extremist Rohingyan elements to reach any peaceful solution. They do not realise that their attacks would only further bring in more hardship to their community who given a choice would prefer to live in harmony with other communities. The insurgents only wanted to have a strong military response and they got it.

One cannot but agree with the editorial in Irrawady of 31st August that violence is not the solution to the issues to Rakhine State and that the danger Myanmar faces is real and will have serious long term consequences within the country and beyond its borders.

To conclude:

  • The present attack which simultaneous and well coordinated over a large was not a spontaneous one, but well planned and executed by people who were well trained in this kind of attacks.
  • Judging from the weapons used, it looks that it was not a trans national operation though the inspiration may have come from far. Yet there is a likelihood of attacks being repeated with more sophistication and deadly weapons and getting internationalised. The ISIS has already shown its interest in Rohingya issue.
  • The security forces were well spread out in the region and attacks were expected. Yet the forces were surprised and shocked by the simultaneous and well-coordinated attacks. It shows that specific intelligence was lacking or that the security forces were overconfident. The Irrawady has suggested that the security forces could perhaps tie up and get trained in counter terrorist operations with India or Indonesia. This appears unnecessary as the Burmese forces are well experienced and trained for undertaking counter insurgency/terror operations in Rakhine State though some may question its brutal methods. Counter insurgency is a dirty war resulting sometimes in use of disproportionate force.
  • Two countries that are directly affected by the attacks are Bangladesh and India. It is officially admitted in India that over 40,000 Rohingyans have illegally settled with most of them in Jammu and Kashmir. J &K is a sensitive area already affected by insurgent activities and the illegals could become a potential recruiting ground. Orders to evict them have brought strong opposition from Human Rights entities and a case has also been filed in the court. I wish the human rights representatives coordinate with their counter parts in West Asia and try to settle them there! Bangladesh has already had a large number of refugees and cannot take any more. Their efforts to stop the refugees at the border will have to be understood. The UN should step in and find alternatives.
  • Lastly, the international entities are not helping the Suu Kyi administration or Suu Kyi herself by cautioning the administration as to what it should do. Suu Kyi it appears is well aware of her constraints both internally and internationally the repercussions if the Rohingya problem intensifies. She would need time and she should be left alone to decide on the modalities of solving the issue.
  • Surprising that no one seems to have condemned in strongest terms the ARSA that started this violent cycle.

Brain Area Targeted In Patients With Schizophrenia Who ‘Hear Voices’

0
0

For the first time, scientists have precisely identified and targeted an area of the brain which is involved in “hearing voices”, experienced by many patients with schizophrenia. They have been able to show in a controlled trial that targeting this area with magnetic pulses can improve the condition in some patients.

This early clinical work is presented at the ECNP conference in Paris on Tuesday 5th September, with later publication in Schizophrenia Bulletin.

“This is the first controlled trial to precisely determine an anatomically defined brain area where high frequency magnetic pulses can improve the hearing of voices”, said lead researcher, Professor Sonia Dollfus (University of Caen, CHU, France).

Schizophrenia is a serious long-term mental health problem. People with schizophrenia experience a range of symptoms, which may include delusions, muddled thoughts and hallucinations. One of the best-known is hearing voices, also known as Auditory Verbal Hallucination (AVH), which around 70% of people with schizophrenia experience at some point. These voices, may be ‘heard’ as having a variety of different characteristics, for example as internal or external, friendly or threatening, they may be continuously present or present only occasionally, and so on.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) has been suggested as a possible way of treating the hearing of voices in schizophrenia. TMS uses magnetic pulses to the brain, and has been shown to be effective in several psychiatric conditions. However, there is a lack of controlled trials to show that TMS works effectively with AVH sufferers.

The French research team worked with 26 patients who received active TMS treatment, and 33 as a control group, who received sham (placebo) treatment. The researchers interviewed the patients using a standard protocol – the Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale – which revealed most of the characteristic features of the voices which they were hearing. The treated patients received a series of 20 Hz high-frequency magnetic pulses over 2 sessions a day for 2 days. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the pulses were targeted at a specific brain area in the temporal lobe, which is associated with language (the exact area is the crossing of the projection of the ascending branch of the left lateral sulcus and the left superior temporal sulcus)

After two weeks, the patients were re-evaluated. The researchers found that 34.6% of the patients being treated by TMS showed a significant response, whereas only 9.1% of patients in the sham group responded (‘significant response’ was defined as a more than 30% decrease in the Total Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale score).

Professor Sonia Dollfus said, “Auditory Verbal Hallucinations, or “hearing voices” can be a disturbing symptom of schizophrenia, both for patients and for those close to sufferers. This is the first controlled trial to show an improvement in these patients by targeting a specific area of the brain and using high frequency TMS. This means two things; firstly it seems that we now can say with some certainty that we have found a specific anatomical area of the brain associated with auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia. Secondly, we have shown that treatment with high frequency TMS makes a difference to at least some sufferers, although there is a long way to go before we will know if TMS is the best route to treat these patients in the long-term”.

Commenting, Professor Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim and member of the ECNP executive board, said, “This work builds on previous studies that have shown a critical role of excessive activity of subregions of the temporal lobe in the generation of voice hallucinations in schizophrenia. To move this into treatment, controlled trial such as the one by Dollfus and coworkers are important. While response rates were moderate, TMS is a welcome addition to the therapeutic repertoire especially for patients who do not respond to medication.”

European XFEL: Europe’s Next-Generation Free-Electron Laser

0
0

A faster, more powerful European XFEL free-electron laser1 was inaugurated on September 1, 2017, near Hamburg, Germany.

By producing ultra-bright, trillion-photon X-ray flashes at a frequency two hundred times greater than the best preexisting free-electron lasers (FELs), this next-generation European instrument will allow scientists to map the atomic relief of viruses, decipher the molecular composition of cells, create 3-D images of the nanoworld, and even film chemical reactions.

Eleven countries helped build the XFEL, at a cost of €1.2 billion. The French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) both played a leading role in the design and construction of the superconducting electron accelerator at the heart of this new international research facility.

Since the 1970s, particle accelerators have been used to produce X-rays through synchrotron radiation. This technology is used for structural analysis of materials and was enhanced through the construction of dedicated research facilities—e.g., ESRF and SOLEIL in Grenoble and Saclay, France, respectively. FELs emit ultra-bright (1012 photons), ultra-short (on the order of a femtosecond 2) flashes of almost perfectly coherent (~100%) light,3 opening up new horizons for scientific investigation. The European XFEL, based outside of Hamburg, Germany, uses a superconducting electron accelerator to generate 27,000 ultra-bright X-ray flashes per second—a frequency two hundred times greater than its best FEL predecessors. With a length of 3.4 km, it is also the longest laser in its class.

The European XFEL electron accelerator is a pioneer in the world of light sources as it is the only one to harness superconductivity. It was built by a consortium of European institutes, primarily based in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, and Switzerland. France’s involvement will include future projects coordinated by the CNRS. But the country is also home to the Orsay-based Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur Linéaire (CNRS / Paris-Sud University), or LAL, which played an important role during the laser’s construction.

LAL supervised the production and conditioning of all power couplers,4 crucial components of linear particle accelerators.

Certain steps in the preparation of the couplers required knowledge transfer benefiting industrial firms, and close cooperation with these companies was necessary to ensure the quality of the finished product. Unique equipment for the mass production of the couplers was installed at the laboratory, allowing for an output of 8 to 10 conditioned couplers per week.

The conditioned couplers were then sent to the CEA Institute of Research into the Fundamental Laws of the Universe (Paris-Saclay), or IRFU, for assembly into 103 cryomodules. The CEA completed this integrative task through the transfer of knowledge to the company Alsyom—under the terms of a July 2012 agreement—and the use of a dedicated facility in Saclay. This made it possible to assemble one cryomodule every four days, without sacrificing technical quality. The DESY pilot laboratory in Germany analyzed the performance of the couplers and cryomodules—the fruit of eight years of effort—and its results confirm the technological prowess of the French scientists.

European XFEL emitted its first beam in May 2017. It can now produce light with enough intensity to elucidate structures on nanometric or even atomic scales in a single pulse. Both the duration—on the order of a femtosecond—and the coherence of the light flashes will allow scientists to study the dynamics of biological structures, nano-objects, and chemical reactions in real time. In addition, the laser’s exceptional brilliance5 will enable induction and observation of excited states of matter—such as those existing at the core of planets.

Notes:
1 A free-electron laser (FEL) generates photons using electrons that are not bound to atoms. It emits intense, coherent light across a wide range of wavelengths, including microwaves, X-rays, UV, visible light, and infrared. The new European laser specifically produces X-rays.
2 1 femtosecond (1 fs) = 1 quadrillionth of a second (10-15 s)
3 By increasing light coherence, we obtain a more accurate image of how matter is organized.
4 A total of 850 power couplers were produced: 700 by the European Thales/RI consortium and 150 by the American company CPI.
5 Number of photons emitted per unit of time, per unit of angular divergence, per unit of cross-sectional area, for a given bandwidth.

India: Entering The Heartland In Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh – Analysis

0
0

By Deepak Kumar Nayak*

On August 16, 2017, three cadres of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) were arrested by the Security Forces (SFs) from Tumiradi village in the Narayanpur District of Chhattisgarh. The arrested Maoists were identified as Vijay Dhruva, Gore Hichami and Maniram Dhruva.

On August 9, 2017, SFs arrested a local CPI-Maoist ‘militia commander’, identified as Budhru Mandavi (23), from Kalmanar village in Narayanpur District. A CPI-Maoist banner and two pamphlets were found on him.

On July 31, 2017, in a joint operation SFs arrested four CPI-Maoist cadres from Bagjhar village in Narayanpur District. The arrested cadres were identified as Malu Netam (45), Baijuram Gawde (26), Ashiram Salam (42) and Shivnath Yadav. Malu Netam carried a reward of INR 2,000 on his head.

According to partial data collated by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least 25 Maoists have been arrested in Narayanpur District thus far in 2017 (data till September 3). During the corresponding period in 2016, 10 Maoists had been arrested. However, a total of 32 Maoists were arrested through 2016. There were no arrests in 2015, while 73 were arrested in 2014; 34 in 2013; 14 in 2012; 43 in 2011; and 25 in 2010.

Moreover, according to SATP data, at least 15 Maoists were killed in Narayanpur District in 2017 (data till September 3), as against six, during the corresponding period, in 2016, and a total of 16 through 2016. Total Maoist fatalities in 2016 were the highest ever recorded in this category in the District. The previous highs were recorded in 2010, at 15 Maoist fatalities, and 2011 at 12.

SFs have suffered one loss in the current year. During the corresponding period of the preceding year, SFs also recorded one loss, which was also the only loss in this category through 2016. Thus, the SFs have managed to secure a tremendous positive kill ratio in these two years – 1:16 in 2016 and 1: 15 in 2017 (data till September 3 for both years), the two best ever kill ratios recorded in favour of SFs in the District. On the contrary for three consecutive years – 2008, 2009, and 2010 – the Maoists had a better kill ratio against the SFs. The best kill ratio in favour of Maoists was recorded in 2008 – 1: 2.14. It is significant to note that the fatalities among SFs have declined considerably, from a peak of 27 fatalities in 2010, down to six in 2011, and one per year since then, with an aberration of two fatalities in 2015.

Fatalities in Narayanpur District and Chhattisgarh: 2007*- 2017**

Year

Narayanpur
Chhattisgarh
Narayanpur’s share in % of Total killing
Civilians
SFs
Maoists
Total
Civilians
SFs
Maoists
Total

2007

6
1
4
11
95
182
73
350
3.14

2008

1
15
7
23
35
67
66
168
13.69

2009

0
6
4
10
87
121
137
345
2.89

2010

2
27
15
44
72
153
102
327
13.45

2011

1
6
12
19
39
67
70
176
10.79

2012

0
1
3
4
26
36
46
108
3.70

2013

0
1
5
6
48
45
35
128
4.68

2014

1
1
5
7
25
55
33
113
6.19

2015

3
2
3
8
34
41
45
120
6.66

2016

4
1
16
21
38
36
133
207
10.14

2017

3
1
15
19
17
55
53
125
15.2

Total

21
62
89
172
516
858
793
2167
7.93
Source: SATP, *Data till September 3, 2016.
* Narayanpur carved out on May 11, 2007.

Mounting SF pressure also led to the surrender of 215 Maoists in 2017 (data till September 3), according to SATP data. During the corresponding period in 2016, 112 Maoists had surrendered, and a total of 224 through 2016. In the current year, importantly, on August 25, 2017, seven cadres of the CPI-Maoist, including Manish Salaam (21), carrying a reward of INR 100,000 on his head, surrendered before senior Police and Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) officials at the Narayanpur District Headquarters. Earlier, on January 29, 2017, 195 lower rung Naxals [Left Wing Extremists (LWEs)], including 24 women, belonging to Janatana Sarkar (‘people’s government’ unit) of the CPI-Maoist, surrendered in the District, expressing a wish to join the mainstream.

There has also been marginal improvement with regard to civilian casualties in the current year – three civilians were killed in 2017 (data till September 3) as against four in the corresponding period of 2016 (no further fatality recorded in this category in 2016). However, fatalities in this category, had been increasing, on year on year basis, since 2014, though the numbers were relatively low as compared to other Maoist-affected Districts across the across the country.

Indeed, the overall security scenario in the District is improving. Not surprisingly, according to an April 30, 2017, report, the worst Naxal-affected Abujhmad region in Narayanpur District, long neglected since Independence (1947), will be surveyed by the Chhattisgarh Government for the first time, to compile records of land holdings. The revenue survey will enable a population of at least 35,000, mainly tribals, residing in around 237 villages of Abujhmad to get pattas (title deeds) for the lands they possess.

However, Taman Singh Sonwani, then Collector of Narayanpur, admitted on April 30, 2017, “The completion of the survey is largely dependent on security arrangements. In several villages of Abujhmad, it is not possible to enter without security cover. Hence, it is not possible to predict when the process will be completed”. Further, Superintendent of Police (SP) Santosh Singh stated, “Presently the survey is being conducted in the villages located close to security camps and eventually it will be carried out in the interiors.”

A great deal still needs to be done to restore the order in this District, which continues to remain on the list of the 35 worst Maoist-affected Districts across the country. Narayanpur, moreover, falls under the troubled Bastar Division of Chhattisgarh, which remains the principal challenge for the state.

Narayanpur, one of Chhattisgarh’s twenty seven Districts, is surrounded with dense forests, hills, streams, waterfalls and natural caves. The forest cover of 2116.915 square kilometres accounts for 32.87 per cent of the District’s total area. As a result of the difficult terrain and natural protection it offers Narayanpur has had immense ‘geo-strategic importance’ for the Maoists, and has long served as a major transit route for the rebels to cross into the Naxalite affected areas of the neighbouring State of Maharashtra, giving them safe passage to orchestrate violence on both sides of the State borders. Despite reverses, consequently, the Maoists will certainly fight back to restore a measure of ascendancy in a region that they have dominated in the past.

On August 13, 2017, SFs neutralised a Maoist camp during an operation carried out in the dense forests of the Dandakaranya Range in Narayanpur District. During searches after the encounter, horses were recovered along with weapons and literature. Superintendent of Police (SP) Abhinav Deshmukh from Gadchiroli (Maharashtra), who led the operation, disclosed,

It is suspected that senior central committee leader Sonu Bhupati was holed up in the camp and was conducting meetings with commanders. The horses at the place could be for him and his close aides to move easily in the difficult terrain. Sonu Bhupati is chief of Dandakaranya range falling in areas of Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

Mallojula Venugopala aka Bhupathi aka Sonu is in charge of the Dandakaranya Special Zone Committee (DKSZC), the Andhra-Odisha Border Special Zonal Committee (AOBSZC), and the ‘Golden Corridor Committee (which had been formed by the Maoists to target students and labourers in the industrial areas along the ‘golden corridor’ from Pune through Mumbai, Thane and Nashik in Maharashtra to Ahmedabad in Gujarat and Maharashtra) and is a member of the Central Regional Bureau of the CPI-Maoist. He is also the brother of slain Maoist ‘Politbureau member’ Mallojula Koteswara Rao aka Kishenji, who was killed during an operation in Burishole Forest in the West Midnapore District of West Bengal on November 24, 2011.

According to the SATP database, at least 17 encounters have been reported between the Maoists and SFs which in the District in the current year, as against six such encounter in the corresponding period of 2016, and 12 such through 2016. Besides, there were at least 13 incidents of seizure of arms and ammunition by the SFs in the current year, during which huge caches were recovered. In 2016, during the corresponding period, there were at least five such incidents of recovery, and nine through 2016).

The Maoists have also orchestrated violence to impede developmental works in the District. At least three such incidents have been reported in the District in the current year, as against one such incident in the corresponding period of 2016, and two incidents through 2016. In one such incident, on May 29, 2017, for instance, a group of 50 CPI-Maoist cadres set ablaze a private bus travelling from the Dhanora area to Orchha village in Narayanpur District. The Maoists had been opposing the road construction work in Jhorigaon, where road construction is underway at a brisk pace under security cover provided by the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and the District Police. Earlier, on May 18, 2017, the Maoists had set ablaze a tractor and a mixer engaged in road construction work in the District, and had warned workers against getting involved in any construction works.

The State’s failure to deliver the rudiments of governance and security in these purportedly inaccessible areas has always been misused by Maoists as an alibi to garner support from the local population. Now, as the State reaches out to people in these areas, the Maoists are afraid of losing their support base, though minimal, and can be expected to resist to the limits of their capacities. It is another matter, as an Expert Group to the Planning Commission in 2008, on ‘Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas,’ had noted, that even in areas which are not so inaccessible, “the absence of adequate public intervention, especially in education, health and employment has allowed the non-State actors to push their agenda among the people.”

On May 11, 2017, Chief Minister (CM) Raman Singh addressing a convention of Panchs [members of gram panchayats, village level local-self government institution] Sarpanchs (heads of gram panchayats) and farmers at the District Headquarters town of Narayanpur, calling on the Maoists to join the mainstream of the society and declaring, “There will be progress only when there is peace. There will not be development if schools, hostels and hospitals are damaged. The bullet from the gun only takes out a life of a human being (sic).” On the occasion, the Chief Minister laid foundation stones, dedicated 39 developmental works worth INR 76.5 million and sanctioned ten public-utility works worth INR 450 million in the District. In addition, INR 240 million was sanctioned for solar energy-based irrigation pumps to 500 farmers, INR 5 million for expanding the electricity distribution network in Narayanpur town, INR 4 million to develop sports facilities in the town, and INR 60 million each to construct 33/11 kilovolt electric sub-stations at Orchha and Akabeda. Two specialist doctors’ posts and two ambulances were also sanctioned for Narayanpur town. In addition, INR 50 million was announced to upgrade roads in the town. Chief Minister Singh also announced that electrification of 62 villages in the District had been completed and efforts were being made to provide electricity to 1,080 villages and 5,600 habitations over the next two years.

Effective and time-bound implementation of these projects will have dramatic impact on the local populations and will certainly erode the limited surviving Maoist base. However, all such implementation will depend heavily on continuing SF pressure on the rebels, and on operational success and widening and effective security cover into the Maoist heartland areas of Abujhmadh in Narayanpur and beyond.

*Deepak Kumar Nayak
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images